It is only a matter of time!

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - thanks for putting it so succinctly and well: the concept of 'better' as vague and subjectively defined, and yet still justification enough (in many people's minds) to change an old/historic golf hole right out of existence.

And then thirty years later, the same people who changed it are 30 years older, and suddenly realize that the hole worked perfectly well just as it was 30 years earlier, but that they were too narrow-minded or self-absorbed or self-interested to see it.

[Joe Hancock]

There’s another Maxwell course that had an “improvement” recently, The 11th at Crystal Downs. I think what Maxwell and Mackenzie had there was entirely functional, and fit its setting quite simply. The only reason some thought it needed to be *better* was due to maintenance *improvements* allowing for green speeds never anticipated by the ODG’s.


I get it…..we’re not going to go *backwards* in our maintenance expectations, so we need to *improve* the designs to fit our current state of conditioning.

[Mike_Young]

This thread would be great fodder for those golf announcers filling in between shots.  It's right in there with something like when they speak of some tour dude wanting to be sure his ball lands in a fairway "stripe" with the grain leaning toward the green....none of this matters...committees will always go for what is hyped as the flavor of the day and cost the most.  PXG....ProV1...Scotty Cameron or TMAG driver...I don't even know how to discuss it...

[Mark_Fine]

So Mike, where do you stand - Leave it alone or try to improve?  You have always said restoration is BS. 

[Mark_Fine]

Can any of us imagine what Hugh Wilson thought at Merion when William Flynn came in and said, "I think we can make this course even better!"  The look on his face.  At least they did it together but it has since changed even more as well. 

[Tom_Doak]

One of the architects we most respect, especially on this site, demonstrated while working on a “restoration project” that, in certain instances this Golden Age design could be improved.  He proceeded to adjust and tweak things and with all due respect, I believe he was right and he did make it better!


Are some of the architects of today better than some of the best architects of the past?  I personally have come to think they are.  Is it just a matter of time until the same will be said by future architects about the best work of today?

Years ago I knew the owner of Indianwood in Michigan, Stan Aldridge, who owned an old Wilfrid Reid course and was developing a new course by Bob Cupp and Jerry Pate alongside it.  He told me the new course would be better than old one, and I bet him it wouldn't be.


Later he told me that he was having the same guys make some tweaks to the old course, and I replied, "You're not allowed to sabotage the old course to win our bet!"




Most importantly, to the OP, the idea that someone can suggest a change to an old course that constitutes an "improvement" in most people's eyes, in no way means they are a better architect, because it leaves unproven whether they could have done as good a job on the other 99% of the course that the original designer figured out.  One can only claim superiority base on their work on building new courses. 

[Mike_Young]

So Mike, where do you stand - Leave it alone or try to improve?  You have always said restoration is BS.

I have a low threshold for BS or ignorance of a subject.  I have a low threshold for committees.  And that is because most have very little respect for what a golf architect brings to the table.  They don't take the time to prepare for a conversation.  They listen to the club down the street, the golf pro and the supt or the best player at the club.  And so they throw money at things thinking that the more expensive something is the better it is.  I do know I have seen more courses/clubs damaged by spending too much money than by too little.  I've seen more greens destroyed by going USGA than trying to fix what was there and I've seen more playing conditions destroyed by irrigation than lack of irrigation.  And might I add, I don't know what "IMPROVE" means.  But I do know this business needs to cut the BS quickly.  JMO

[Peter Pallotta]

Can any of us imagine what Hugh Wilson thought at Merion when William Flynn came in and said, "I think we can make this course even better!"  The look on his face.  At least they did it together but it has since changed even more as well.

Mark - I think this is the perfect example. Maybe once, very early on, a William Flynn did come in and make Hugh Wilson's course "better". I've seen many photos of that course in the early post-Flynn years, and it looks truly magnificent and spacious and so much of what Wilson 'intended it to be'; but I look at it now, at the cramped and unrecognizable Frankenstein monster it's become after years and years of further changes to make it "better" (or to stay 'relevant" or to "keep up with the times" or to be able to host another "championship") and I can't help wishing they had long ago simply left it alone.
IMHO of course.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Ran and the GM team have Merion one of the top 15 courses in the world!! What the heck are they thinking after all this change 


Mike,
You and I are more in agreement then I sometimes think.  I have nothing to argue with your last post.  There is no question there is too much money spent on change that is not necessary.  A lot can be done for a little if care and time is taken.  That is why I suggested on another thread that someone should make note of the some of the work done for less than a gazillion dollars.  It is out there but won’t make the  top magazine lists. 


Tom,
Your point is well taken and you are probably right with what you said.  I am not suggesting any architect is saying they are better designers.  It is my fault for using that word.  But what I have come to believe is that there are times when a tweak or adjustment here or there makes a positive difference. Just like with Merion, whether it is better or worse will be debated till the end of time.


By the way would you have agreed with the owner if Gil or C&C or you were building that second course? 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I know, and many other experts and people in the know besides Ran and the GM panel also think it one of the very best courses in the world (with its routing, i.e. fitting such diverse and interesting golf holes in such a compact site, very often cited in support of this view). But this is one of the instances when I'm happy to stand alone as the foolish newbie outsider in the face of consensus opinion. Because of the archival photos, I can see what Merion once was and how it was envisioned and intended to play -- and can see too what decades of money and ego and the pursuit of power and prestige have wrought. 

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I hear you and also to some extent agree.  Maybe what we should start is a thread listing the greatest courses that have been screwed up by change and the greatest that have benefited from it. The problem we will face is many that have been “restored” are much more changed than most of us think so where would we place those designs.  Where would that leave the 9th best course in the world Augusta National    Ugh. All these first world problems to sort out 

[Niall C]

Niall,
I think the point that will ALWAYS be debated is what is improvement?  As Mike C said, no one sets out to make something worse.  They change/tweak/alter things will good intentions.  The debate is why should you do anything different period - just restore it.

So if one person sticks their hand up and says that's not an improvement then the work doesn't go ahead ? Of course no one sets out to make things worse but where would we be now if every course ever built was never tweaked or changed thereafter out of fear of doing something wrong ?

To use one of Mike's favourites as an example, Muirfield, what if they had left Old Tom's 16 hole layout alone ? What if they hadn't extended it to 18 holes and then subsequently what if Harry Colt didn't make improvements (you can argue all you like they weren't improvements but I think you'd lose the argument) and then what if Tom Simpson hadn't made changes to Colt's work which in turn were considered improvements ?

Frankly anyone who says a course can't be improved is a luddite. It's just that the bar is set higher on some courses than others when it comes to changes that improve a course.

Niall 

[Sean_A]

When some of the best archies ever are brought in as examples of why change is good then I know something is up.

I am 50-50 on the subject. Some change is good, some not so much. To a large degree I am more interested in the reasons for change. What I don't like is accepting less than ideal changes for the excuse of health and safety. I think in general its a scam modern idea pedalled by archies.

I guess my dividing line is 9 at TOC. Who thinks it could be much better and who thinks it's fine as is?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

What indeed is improvement?
And then relate an alleged modern day improvement scenario not just to architecture, design, construction, technology and budget but also to include maintenance, conditioning, equipment (ball, club inc head, shaft, grip, clothing, footwear etc) from prior periods.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Lido Wisconsin project, a fascinating idea to me and well done to all involved for making it happen, develops. For example when it’s played with modern equipment in comparison to when brave folks venture out to tackle it with balls and clubs and kit from the era when the original was built even more so if playing to previous era rules of golf including without rakes etc. Just a shame the ‘new’ site can’t precisely mimic some of the original locations features like the wind, climate and maintenance practices (grasses???) etc.
Atb

[Niall C]

When some of the best archies ever are brought in as examples of why change is good then I know something is up.

I am 50-50 on the subject. Some change is good, some not so much. To a large degree I am more interested in the reasons for change. What I don't like is accepting less than ideal changes for the excuse of health and safety. I think in general its a scam modern idea pedalled by archies.

I guess my dividing line is 9 at TOC. Who thinks it could be much better and who thinks it's fine as is?

Ciao

Sean

I'm clearly not saying change for the sake of change is good or that all change is good (you'd know that if you'd read to the end of my post) , but what I'm saying is that Mike C is a luddite for saying all change is bad (my interpretation of his posts). What Mark thinks, well who knows as his views seem to blow with the wind.

Niall

[Jim_Coleman]

   It is inconceivable to me that an architect would make no changes to a design if given the opportunity years later. I know Pete Dye made major changes over the years to his favorite course - Teeth of the Dog. Not to mention TPC. Must that end when the architect passes away?

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
Thoughts blow with the wind     I guess that is appropriate since we are talking golf 


For the record, I have never believed in restoring a golf course just for the sake of restoration.  I believe and have said a zillion times that every course is worthy of some study to see what was once there and how it evolved.  After that, decisions can be made as to what is best to do.  I also believe in trying to determine and understand an architect’s original design intent.  Some here laugh at me that this is not possible.  I guess we disagree because there are times when restoring something just as it was makes no sense for a game that has evolved.  If one believes that the original design intent is lost, if that aspect is not restored then are you really doing restoration when for example you just put a bunker back where is once was and now it is only in play for grandma ,… Sometimes you have little choice if moving them is not an option due to the terrain etc.  Bottom line is that I believe golf courses are constantly changing and architects should expect this will be the case as it has been happening since the game was first developed.  All courses can be made better but it can be done carefully and thoughtfully so as to at a minimum capture the spirit and sole of the original design.  That is what I think for the record 

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I got called back for two projects in the last year to review Master Plans that I had done 15 plus years ago.  We had been chipping away at them as financing permitted but in both cases those overseeing the courses had changed and all sides including me determined a careful review and update of the MP was warranted.  In each case we made changes that were now more appropriate for a variety of reasons including budget, member make up, …. As you say, I can’t imagine any architect thinking they got it perfect from day one.  Heck architects like Flynn didn’t even add bunkers to many of his designs until years after they were played so he could determine what was best.  If you restored a Flynn course to what it looked like on opening day you are making a big mistake.  Knowing Flynn did what he did, I wonder what Flynn would do today if he saw how some of his courses were being played?  Would he leave them alone?

[Jim_Coleman]

Mark: Thank you. Totally agree.

[Tom_Doak]

Can any of us imagine what Hugh Wilson thought at Merion when William Flynn came in and said, "I think we can make this course even better!"  The look on his face.  At least they did it together but it has since changed even more as well.

I think that they both believed it would be better not to be hitting over all those newfangled cars 4x per round.


I don't believe they just decided to blow it up because they were smarter and could do it better.


Have you found any written musings from William Flynn about whether his golf courses should be updated in the future, and who would be qualified to take on that work?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Actually Flynn wrote A LOT.  I spend countless hours in the library at the USGA researching and studying not only about Flynn but about numerous other architect’s writings for our book and for various restoration/renovation projects.  Here are just a few of many quotes from Flynn.  You tell me how you interpret them:

• “The plans first submitted by an architect should cover what might be well termed the framework of the course, but should be flexible in the manner of pits and bunkers.  Those around the greens and certain traps just off the fairways may be fairly well determined in advance, but the location of the others can be better determined after the course has been completed and played on for some time.”
• “It would be well for a club to retain its architect in an advisory capacity after construction is finished”
• “All architects will be a lot more comfortable with their designs when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem”

My interpretation is that Flynn realized (just from the ball quote alone) that what he was building at the time (almost 100 years ago) was going to have to change (at least in some ways) to retain his original vision/intent for the design.  To think he felt otherwise such as it is fine just the way it is seems a far stretch to me. 


As far as who is qualified to do the work; that will always be up for debate but whoever it is better have done their homework on the architect and the original design and evolution of the course at hand.  The better the original course, the more important this kind of knowledge and understanding is. 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Just remember that every single architect and every single committee who screwed up a Golden Age course also believed they were "improving" it.

Mike


That's very true but then it's only dirt and you have the option of having another go. On the other hand how many courses have been improved. I suspect that if you looked at the ledger over time the courses that have been improved outnumber the ones that haven't. It should also be said that the ODG's weren't squeamish about making changes to each others work.


Niall

To counter that.
I would imagine check that same ledger and almost EVERY Langford and Moraeu  course that was changed was for the worse!!!!!

[V_Halyard]

When some of the best archies ever are brought in as examples of why change is good then I know something is up.

I am 50-50 on the subject. Some change is good, some not so much. To a large degree I am more interested in the reasons for change. What I don't like is accepting less than ideal changes for the excuse of health and safety. I think in general its a scam modern idea pedalled by archies.

I guess my dividing line is 9 at TOC. Who thinks it could be much better and who thinks it's fine as is?

Ciao

They keep changing it every few years though don't they? I think they have been making changes on and off for a couple hundred years. Just not a US Style Blow up, tree removal and Re grassing because... well because.

[Ally Mcintosh]

When some of the best archies ever are brought in as examples of why change is good then I know something is up.

I am 50-50 on the subject. Some change is good, some not so much. To a large degree I am more interested in the reasons for change. What I don't like is accepting less than ideal changes for the excuse of health and safety. I think in general its a scam modern idea pedalled by archies.

I guess my dividing line is 9 at TOC. Who thinks it could be much better and who thinks it's fine as is?

Ciao

Of course it could be better. It’s fine as it is.

[Sean_A]

When some of the best archies ever are brought in as examples of why change is good then I know something is up.

I am 50-50 on the subject. Some change is good, some not so much. To a large degree I am more interested in the reasons for change. What I don't like is accepting less than ideal changes for the excuse of health and safety. I think in general its a scam modern idea pedalled by archies.

I guess my dividing line is 9 at TOC. Who thinks it could be much better and who thinks it's fine as is?

Ciao

Of course it could be better. It’s fine as it is.

Well, there you go. A hole on the most revered course in the world tagged as fine. Not an overwhelming endorsement.

Ciao